0 votes

Proof: CyberWar being waged against the Citizenry, DHS Trolls attack Anti-TSA Site!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/dhs-troll-attacks-anti-ts...

Abusive Homeland Security ‘troll’ attacks anti-TSA website: report

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 -- 10:43 pm

An activist website devoted to opposing the TSA's new screening procedures says it's the victim of an online "troll" from inside the Department of Homeland Security.

WeWontFly.com, which is urging the public to stop flying "until the porno scanners are history," says it has identified abusive comments from someone using a DHS computer.

"F**k you, f**k all you c**ksuckers, you wont change anything," read a comment that has now been deleted from the WeWontFly blog. "Ride the bus, TSA is here to stay there [sic] doing a great job keeping americia [sic] safe."

https://img.skitch.com/20101222-kgw1hk947sx1b65mdd5666u4jf.png

_____________________________________________

A 'model' govt employee, eh?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sacramento Area Pilot Punished For YouTube Video

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=113529&c...

"At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation."

For showing flaws in airport security...

killing the messenger.

instead of actually fixing the god-damn problem, they bitch, moan, coverup, and make life miserable for honest people.

how can any sane people look at this behavior and not equate it to the mob?

there's not even a charge against him, just 'legal' nuisance.

well, at least we know that local sheriff's deputy is no OathKeeper.

just like watching a bunch of monkeys at the zoo.

seems like a daily thing now.

govt statist goons reprimanding, arresting, torturing, murdering, simply because some of us dare point out how stupid they look in them uniform, or their ineffective methods.

at least from the portion shown within the newscast, does not seem like the pilot is mentioning any specifics of the security holes, which anyone paying attention, aren't likely to fail to notice anyway.

like Assange, whoever or whatever his real agenda may or may not be, the only crime is simply pointing out how stupid they are, and embarrassing them before the public, destroying any myth of omnipotent air about public servants.

good link, Thomas. FrontPage!

P.S. the best part about the pilot's video?

absolutely no 'sekurity,' yet, the punchline: a TSA sign that says "Think Security."

woo, that must also mean if you work for the TSA, think long and hard enough about unicorns, they must just pop out, out of thin air. just because TSA wished for one! Yipee!

his name is

bs mith

I guess he's

living up to his name.)

I'm just as paranoid as the

I'm just as paranoid as the next guy, but clearly this was just some loyal, misguided employee posting, not a "paid troll" or any form of cyber warfar.

please don't discredit what we do with gross exaggeration

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

hmm, "clearly... a loyal, misguided employee?"

while I agree with you there, and that probably highly likely be the case, however, like it or not, your statement itself is an assumption; while my characterization may have seem to you to be more over the top than what you'd probably consider apropos, it was strictly referencing a fact, not an assumption.

would you not consider that ironic?

also, aside from the IP address, as detected by the proprietor of WeWontFly.com, frankly neither you nor I can be completely certain of anything else, other than the FACT that its IP was traced backed to one registered to the DHS.

that said, if you so presume he is an employee there, which would certainly make him, or her 'paid.' and by all common internet decorum, that posted comment qualifies as a 'trolling.'

Now let us get more specific. Consider the following (it was mentioned in the article):

"Donnelly reports he has found 19 comments in all from the same computer, none of them quite as caustic as the one quoted above, but all hostile to the group's efforts and seemingly written from the perspective of someone inside the TSA."

and

"The comments were attributed to various nicknames, usually revolving around some variation on the name "Butch." In one comment, the writer claims to have four years' service as an Army MP."

Really, "19 comments in all from the same computer," is not trolling??

Just what would you define'cyberwar' to be? As I understand it it is a multi-faceted concoction of anything from repeated annoyance to data-mining, to programmed physical system failure. Yes, it encompasses all those things.

But, we're not talking "War Games" level here.

so, how is that "BSmith," NOT a "paid troll," even strictly speaking, by definition?

thanks for proving my own point.

by the way, how in the world is that "discredit[-ing] what we do?"

and how is this a "gross exaggeration?"

to be frank, regardless of how you, or I characterize this incident, facts are, a DHS computer was used within a DHS facility to send out this trolling comment.

Now, had I stated emphatically that the DHS were coordinating a continuous DDoS attack, non-stop, 24/7 for the entire year against everyone of us? Now, that would be an exaggeration.

factually speaking, you're commenting on your own perceived premise, not one that I've advocated, but one in which you seemed to have inferred from, when I never said such thing.

Besides, it's hardly a liberty position to proclaim how you feel and what you individually do, to gain more argumentative leverage to equate as "what WE do."

Now, that, is in fact an exaggeration, as you speak only for yourself, as an individual, not for me, or anybody else, even though, more than likely, I too would share your sentiments.

Please, no need to conflate. Your point is that the post "feels" more biting than necessary. I agree. However, I flushed down my Sympathy-for-Statists token, long ago.

So pardon my anti-PC characterization of State Actors. They deserve no such minutiae of discernment. Wouldn't you say that kinda went out the window, after oh I don't know... illegal wars, torture, spying, etc.??

Just info, brother. I guess I just don't get anyone coming to extreme minutiae defense of StateActors, at this juncture in history. I suppose one can counter-argue that to be also 'collectivist,' but the difference is with non-collectivists, individuals don't claim to have exclusive rights because of a 'group' they may or may not belong to. key difference.

We do call them Statists for a reason you know, no?

I am sure,

that probably made oBUSHma's Goebbels incarnate, Cass Sunstein's day.